To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

-2- Feb ..-March, 1971 Notes for Military Lawyers
Delayed entry officer awaiting orders to active duty is in custody at home address
and is in jurisdiction of the district court of his home address.
Strait v. Laird, No. 26,289 (CA 9, Feb. 17, 1971). Habeas corpus petition
granted. See NOMLAC, Feb.-March, 1971-
Man inducted as delinquent should be discharged for erroneous induction. Gutknecht
retroactive.
Huntington v» Resor, Civ. #C-70-278l-0JC (N.D. Calif., Feb. k, 1971). Habeas
petition granted.
Habeas corpus—"Depth and maturity" of conscientious objector views not necessary
for recognition as CO; "Conscientious objection has no necessary relation to
intellectual sophistication"—Selective Service file which was not part of evidence considered by the Review Board cannot be basis for denial.
Helwick v. Laird, No^ 30059 (CA 5, Feb. 16, 1971). Petition granted. See NOMLAC
Feb.-March, 1971-
Mandamus—Reconsideration of record by the Army Board for Correction of Military
Records is discretionary and not a mandatory obligation.
Keegy v. Secretary of the Army. No. 20,1+32 (CA 8, Feb. 9, 1971). Petition denied. See NOMLAC, Feb.-March, 1971.
Publications
The January 1971 issue of The Advocate has a long article on the Army's new Drug
Abuse Regulation, AR 600-32. The editors of the Advocate suggest that defense
counsel now challenge all drug violations laid under Article 13U. AR 600-32
suggests that drug violations be prosecuted under Article 92, violations bf which
can be punished with a maximum confinement of 2 years, as opposed to the 5-10
year maximums under 131*. Under the regulations, commanders must determine whether
the "drug abuser" should be classified and treated as an "experiementer," a
"user," or an "addict." If the determination was not made, the lawyer can use
this in his defense. The regulation also emphasizes rehabilitation and restoration to duty in contrast to prosecution.
The article concludes: "It can be reasonably anticipated that AR 600-32 will
change the direction of drug prosecutions throughout the military. Wisely
advanced and employed, it can be a tremendous tool in the successful defense of
drug violators. Counsel are strongly encouraged to become familiar with the
regulation, and to challenge vigorously any attempts to denigrate its favorable
applications, being seriously mindful to preserve any such issues for appellate
review."
Civilian lawyers who handle dourts-martial may order The Advocate from the
Defense Appellate Division, US Army Judiciary, Washington, DC 20315.
MH
II Mil 9, 2-3/71

Copyright belongs to the individuals who created them or the organizations for which they worked. We share them here strictly for non-profit educational purposes. If you believe that you possess copyright to material included here, please contact us at asklibrary@wisconsinhistory.org. Under the fair use provisions of the U.S. copyright law, teachers and students are free to reproduce any document for nonprofit classroom use. Commercial use of copyright-protected material is generally prohibited.

Copyright belongs to the individuals who created them or the organizations for which they worked. We share them here strictly for non-profit educational purposes. If you believe that you possess copyright to material included here, please contact us at asklibrary@wisconsinhistory.org. Under the fair use provisions of the U.S. copyright law, teachers and students are free to reproduce any document for nonprofit classroom use. Commercial use of copyright-protected material is generally prohibited.

-2- Feb ..-March, 1971 Notes for Military Lawyers
Delayed entry officer awaiting orders to active duty is in custody at home address
and is in jurisdiction of the district court of his home address.
Strait v. Laird, No. 26,289 (CA 9, Feb. 17, 1971). Habeas corpus petition
granted. See NOMLAC, Feb.-March, 1971-
Man inducted as delinquent should be discharged for erroneous induction. Gutknecht
retroactive.
Huntington v» Resor, Civ. #C-70-278l-0JC (N.D. Calif., Feb. k, 1971). Habeas
petition granted.
Habeas corpus—"Depth and maturity" of conscientious objector views not necessary
for recognition as CO; "Conscientious objection has no necessary relation to
intellectual sophistication"—Selective Service file which was not part of evidence considered by the Review Board cannot be basis for denial.
Helwick v. Laird, No^ 30059 (CA 5, Feb. 16, 1971). Petition granted. See NOMLAC
Feb.-March, 1971-
Mandamus—Reconsideration of record by the Army Board for Correction of Military
Records is discretionary and not a mandatory obligation.
Keegy v. Secretary of the Army. No. 20,1+32 (CA 8, Feb. 9, 1971). Petition denied. See NOMLAC, Feb.-March, 1971.
Publications
The January 1971 issue of The Advocate has a long article on the Army's new Drug
Abuse Regulation, AR 600-32. The editors of the Advocate suggest that defense
counsel now challenge all drug violations laid under Article 13U. AR 600-32
suggests that drug violations be prosecuted under Article 92, violations bf which
can be punished with a maximum confinement of 2 years, as opposed to the 5-10
year maximums under 131*. Under the regulations, commanders must determine whether
the "drug abuser" should be classified and treated as an "experiementer" a
"user" or an "addict." If the determination was not made, the lawyer can use
this in his defense. The regulation also emphasizes rehabilitation and restoration to duty in contrast to prosecution.
The article concludes: "It can be reasonably anticipated that AR 600-32 will
change the direction of drug prosecutions throughout the military. Wisely
advanced and employed, it can be a tremendous tool in the successful defense of
drug violators. Counsel are strongly encouraged to become familiar with the
regulation, and to challenge vigorously any attempts to denigrate its favorable
applications, being seriously mindful to preserve any such issues for appellate
review."
Civilian lawyers who handle dourts-martial may order The Advocate from the
Defense Appellate Division, US Army Judiciary, Washington, DC 20315.
MH
II Mil 9, 2-3/71